If there's a community disruption, then the purpose of the hearing is to determine why it happened—i.e., whether an enforceable by-law has been violated or not.
But as I understand the way we've been talking about convening a hearing, the basis is not whether two admins perceive that there has been a community disruption.
Here is a clarification that Jn offered in another thread, to my concerns about only two admins being able to convene a hearing (bolding pertinent paragraph, but including others for context):
Cerin: IF the set of possible member violations of by-laws is larger and more ambiguous than the grounds for removal of an admin (and therefore involving a greater amount of subjectivity) ...
Jnyusa: Ah! I see the logic of this. But actually the grounds for suspending posting rights and banning members are quite narrow and all are specified in the Charter, as are the grounds for removing an admin.
The things that are less well-defined are "violation of member rights," There will be a list of member rights but the jury will still have to decide whether a violation actually occured and I can imagine this being a gray area in some cases.
Thing is, it's not the admins who make this decision. They only have to decide that the original charge is not frivolous; that some member has not complained just to get another member in trouble. It seems to me that if two current admins agree that something really did happen, that ought to be enough. The admins also serve in the order in which they entered the pool so the odds of getting a faction that would be both biased against a particular member and willing to disserve their office are pretty slim.
So according to this, admins just have to determine that a complaint (about an enforceable by-law) is not capricious, not that a complaint rises to the level of a community disruption. I would say that that consideration (whether a complaint rises to the level of a community disruption) is something that will be used to define non-enforceable and enforceable by-laws (re what TORN suggested).
I prefer having the name focus on the community rather than on the rules. The rules don't exist for their own sake; they exist to protect the community from disruption.
I understand that the rules exist to protect the community; perhaps a statement to that effect would be appropriate at the beginning of a listing of the by-laws?
The first sentence should be:
"Hearings are held for violations of the by-laws that disrupt the community."
Does that solve it in the minds of the rest of you? Then one's interpretation of the title does not influence what one thinks a hearing can be called for, and it's only a matter of deciding what you would like the title to emphasize.
I think this sentence reflects the idea that there are violations that are considered more serious (ones that cause a community disruption), and that these are the ones for which a hearing can be called to make a determination as to whether an enforceable by-law has been violated.
However, I'm not sure if a violation of an enforceable by-law will necessarily cause a community disruption, so I think specifying a community disruption in that sentence might be problematic, too.
I know that we talked previously about "community disputes" (eligible for hearings) and "individual disputes" (eligible for mediation). Jn, you have a better understanding of what the by-laws and member rights will shape up to be. Do you think that a community dispute (that is, involving a violation of board rules) will necessarily always cause a community disruption? (I am vaguely imagining a situation involving a violation of board rules, that nevertheless remains self-contained between the individuals involved.)